Dear Banjo,

I wasn't talking about drowning.

How many of the Jews that we took in after WW2 had all their papers. Their records and synagogues were destroyed. Should they have been abandoned on Macquarie Island too?

I'm proud that my country is a part of the UN Refugee convention which for the most part accepts the obligations it imposes. We take only modest numbers compared to the need and other countries. But the toxic public debate that has been fuelled by our politicians has allowed views like yours oxygen. I am not proud of that.

Dear individual,

We are not being invaded by a fundamentalist religious agenda so what is your point?

.....are you still trying to maintain that our processes cannot be tightened?"

Of course not, where the bucket leaks fix it and I'm assuming that's what the authorities do when they find a leak. What are you proposing, SPQR, something more prejudicial, such as risk assessment and the granting of tourist visas to certain ethnic groups?

Regarding the High Court vs Parliament, the current Migration Act precludes Malaysia as much as it does Nauru, so must be changed by parliament to enable either prospect. The opposition, if it wins a ruling majority, can change the law, while Labor is always at the mercy of the Greens to do so. That's why Joel Fitzgibbon is right to want to push the boundaries on the alliance. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/labor-mp-joel-fitzgibbon-questions-green-alliance/story-fncynkc6-1226416297059

csteele, I'm not sure whether you count me as someone who "... wishes the risk to continue to deter desperate people" as cruel, hateful, misguided and inhuman". Does your statement refer to those in support of offshore processing?

csteele,
The fact is that the illegal boat arrivals are shonks. They fly to Malaysia and get to our waters by coruption, bribery and buying their way. Genuine refugees would come via the front door because it is cheaper, with any docs they had and present themselves for assesment. Not pay many times more to hop over the back fence. The illegals are gate crashers who are coached to lie to our officials and destroy their docs so we cannot actually identify them and validate their stories. We cannot send them back, so we take the easy way out.

Aussies do not like being conned.

We need to take tough action to let them know we are serious and the influx of boats will be stopped.

The Howard government took far too long to implement the required action and now, thanks to Rudd, the illegals know we are soft and stupid so much stronger action is now required.

All immigrants, including assesed refugees, should not get family reunion rights. Legal aid should only be given to Australian citizens.

Past time the UN refugee agreement was gone over and changes made to our immigration policies. Perhaps we should withdraw from the UN entirely.

Everyone on here are not considering that EVERYTHING has changed !

We are now in a time of zero growth at the End of Growth.
We cannot accept migration or a natural increase in population without
a decrease in standard of living.

All those wanting to accept the illegals at their word please list
what facilities and products you will do without.
Please no comments unless you first list those items.

Thanks for the support Banjo.

There is one more requirement to my idea of allowing ~3000 asylum seekers to come here each year by air, and that is a complete clamp-down of visa overstayers and the current airborne onshore asylum seeking movement that stems from it. That doesn’t necessarily mean that all visa overstayers should be expelled forthwith, but it does mean aligning the law with general practice.

And if some are to gain asylum by that means, then they need to be included within this ~3000 asylum-seeker figure.

The key point is that we have got to have control over our borders and over all aspects of our immigration program.

The wonderful thing is that we can do this, and have all the essential elements of a stable population / sustainable society, essential skills intake and a highly respectable humanitarian immigration program, all at the same time.

Or at least, we would be able to do this, easily, if only we had a half-decent government or a half-decent opposition (next government)!

csteele.

I never claimed that we would get all or a even a large proportion of the world's people who have a genuine humanitarian claim, just that there are a great many of them. (If you include all the people who might like a better life, you are talking about billions.) Even so, we might be able to get enough to be severely disruptive. Britain got half a million asylum claims between 1997 and 2004. This doesn't include dependants who arrived later. See the Home Office figures

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/108

Note that only 23% were found to be genuine, including after appeal. 14% were given leave to remain, although found to not be refugees, sometimes for humanitarian reasons, but often because there was no practical way to deport them. All the rest were classed as failed asylum seekers, but only 24% were deported. Refugee advocates blithely talk about deporting fraudulent claimants, but that isn't so easy if you can't prove where they are from or the home country won't cooperate.

Others say that we are protected from large numbers by being surrounded by water, but so is the UK. On another thread, Yabby pointed out that he or some other entrepreneur could easily bring in huncreds of thousands of people by buying up old sheep transport ships.

Apart from (very few) Tamils who came directly from Sri Lanka (and I would make an exception in this case), the boat people would have had to have travel documents to get through one or more transit countries. Airlines won't take you if you don't have them. Tell us another.